No biological basis... skin color and bone shape are instantly visible to anyone and everyone who looks at a groid. In fact they used to call unidentified remains by their ancestral origin. Negroid, mongoloid, caucasoid. How bout that. Not only are the differences not "just" skin deep, they go all the way from the core to the surface.

The fun part is that the wikipedia page calls this kind of thing "discredited." It was really disheartening a few years ago to slowly see leftist ideology complete overtake anything and everything on wikipedia that could remotely have any politics or agenda involved. Now, there's so much fucking bureaucracy and weasely abuse/interpretation of the rules that they basically do whatever they want, including the concept of "if you can link to a source with X you can put it in the article." Which leads to very agenda-driven and subjective political viewpoints being passed off as established fact because they sourced such statements.

Case in point, calling "race realism" a "pseudo-scientific" idea that's been "discredited," and of course this is factually true because look, here's some sources that say that! Anything that would contradict that isn't a real source, goy!

Except bone shape has feedbacks with natural selection and a violence, as well as sexual selection amoungst tribes. A thicker brow can withstand a hard blow.

Neuropsychologist shows, that the facial recognition center of our brains consume a lot of energy. It makes sense for tribes to try to identify those like themselves. And as it turns out we all prejudice based on difference, which can be presented as an illusion of contrast. We also prejudice based on environmental factors. We tend to judge others more if there is trash around vs a clear space.

If you look are the genome overall, humans as a species share a lot of the same genetic expression. If you look at our belief systems, we reward those that align with society. If you look at psychology transactionally we share the same words, aspire for the same pursuit happiness, and endure the same harsh reality.

Besides the mutts are already out, and they are smarter, taller, have a stronger metabolism, and are more beautiful than the rest of us.

You want to know the bigger statistic for being incarcerated? Locality. You can be born black, Asian or white, but don’t be born in Detroit.

The original paper is here, for those interested. There might however be another cause for the gap in the above picture; only West Africans were sampled. Abyssinia and surrounding areas are generally considered the intermediate zone between Caucasoid and Negroid; traditionally these people were called Hamitic. This is not to say that racial differences do not exist, but I find it wiser to base these analyses on physical qualities as has traditionally been done, than to rush into the world of genetic classification, which in my experience as a taxonomy enthusiast tends to produce rather bizarre groupings.

Good post Lazmat. Most people also don't know this fact. All other members of the Human Race belong either to the Macro-Haplogroup Haplogroup M or N(suggesting an early split between non-African humans(one of which would have been more European-like and the other more African-like), while Africans do not.

This means that all humans split off from Africans very, very early on in their existence. I am thinking that in the case of other humans they were a higher form of Chimpanzee/Bonobo that in some case would have represented anthropologically the lowest type in the particular species of the Ape(Gorilla), due to anthropological retrogression to lowest segment of a species when one specie breaks off from a species which they are technically part of/and/or closely related to, but technically not related to(evolutionary departure from a certain species/Darwinian "speciazation" usually would involve a form of that "species"(very vague what this means exactly, since I believe the earliest speciated form of Chimpanzees/Bonobos might not even been able to reproduce with them(hard to say because one could argue that when humans speciated from Chimpanzees/Bonobos there might have been a fixed merging between one chromosome and another chromosome(Chimpanzees were said to have an extra chromosome) which would have been an inverted case of a "deformation" of the chromosomal pattern in the species evolving to a higher type(it would have been non-mutational according to Darwinian science, because nature preserves those things for eons vis a vis natural selection).

I believe this early Hominoid would have already been a different species in the Chimpanzee/Bonobo sector of the Ape species, but would have only been exactly similar genetically speaking. They would have the capacity to "reason" and use limited forms of language(maybe early on a kind of sign language but quickly spread into a somewhat monosyllabic/Consonant based language(proof of this is actually to be found in the Khoi language in Africa(Humans evolve more when it comes to genetics and less when it comes to base form of language), which would have been written out like Cuneiform or Hieroglyphics. Scientists underestimate the capacity for humans to speak languages. The main difference between Africans and other sections of the human race is that they would have been closer to the Chimpanzee/Bonobos genetically and never evolved from them(would effect neural development(this would have been huge and limited the development of more complex "circuits" and "nodes" in the brain which would have improved a wide range of "rational," cognitive, and logical/linguistic processes, cognitive development on certain levels, and possibly situation of the brain(size, shape, and angle) in the skull.

If Chimpanzees could once interbreed with humans(and this is a big if and I can't come around to believe it exactly) then Africans would have likely been descendants of a particular breed of the human species that interbred for a longer time with Chimpanzees/Bonobos before exclusively intermingling among other types of their own species. Of course evolutionary development and biological science is more complex than I am making it out to be, but when one gets to the higher levels of thought in evolutionary/biological sciences, one can find the "missing link" or "situation" of why this is like that but even then a full and axiomatic principle can ever be ascertained to be exact off mere circumstantial evidence and base logical inference.

I also don't believe in the spontaneous evolutionary theory nor the theory that the "missing link" can't be found because of the slow development when it comes to the evolutionary split between from one species to the other(Bushman are genetic missing links between Chimpanzees and humans because they share genetic similarity with Chimpanzees and only have an extra nucleotide which differentiates them). This again proves that speciation probably did not happen as Darwin realized and that if it happened it was a "freak" incident, but also showcases that genetic similarity with the animal species has massive impacts on humans, when it comes to intelligence and other things. Its also my belief that pan genesis is flawed and is a kind of emphasis that material existence spontaneously emerged(counter to intelligence design found in Creationism and some modern science, which is flawed) and that the higher species did not directly evolve from the lower species but were already broken off from(the lower in the animal kingdom you go the greater the genetic diversity) each other and disproves part of the evolutionary theory.

Instead the distance between humans and Africans and within the non-African parts of the human race is due to not only environmental/climatic differences, but rather mutational shifts(probably natural selection at work) and also the fact that when "speciation" occurred the "species" were already technically divided in some form or another and never were able to interbred with each other. It might be both/and, but I doubt that at least the European variety of human has any direct connection with the Chimpanzees/Bonobos like the African race does and even then there are questions as to whether it is due to just lack of evolutionary shifts and mutation more so than ancient interbreeding between Chimpanzees/Bonobos and Africans.

It gives a good idea though and provides the finer details which I can't do at the moment. The split between the other races out of Africa is more recent and they split into two branches(one with a more ancient connection to out-of-Africa, namely Asia, and one with no(I am talking about Europe/Central Asia) or a more recent connection to out-of-Africa(Middle-East). Look up multi-regional hypothesis and there are some scientific grounds for it, even though mainstream science has rejected it. Anyways, my belief is that the different sub-races were already broken up very, very early(European, Asian, and African).

I also believe that if evolution from lower species is true then its more likely that speciation occurs within a certain sector of a certain species that outpaced the other sectors of that species(Humans were first to evolve into Chimpanzee/Bonobo form from lower species and the reason Chimpanzee/Bonobos did not evolve into humans is because the particular genetic structure found in humans that allowed for the freak evolutionary phase was carried in the human type from the original pan genesis event which would have worked in a such a way that would have mirrored Haeckel's recapitulation hypothesis(but been progressive and not had a set genetic equilibrium, which is very possible when one accounts for the massive amount of diversity in the lower parts of the biological and animal kingdom.

This is all pseudo-science technically speaking, but modern sciences approach is no worse and actually is worse than the Creationist approach, and finding the "truth," will be nearly impossible in this way, so might as way to look to semi-legitimate science which has been rejected, like Haeckel's, since its considered too "racist."

There is probably some other "middle-split" between East-Asia and Europe, which would heavily influenced an area from South-Asia to Eastern Europe(this unknown variant is very hard to distinguish and could have been a variety of things(a early split within Homo-Erectus(not completely likely), but likely an early split in Homo-Erectus that interbred with modern Homo sapiens(possibly a European based source), a fusion of Denisovans/Neanderthals(very, very possible and some have suggested this influence through bottleneck has influenced areas as far South as Melanesia(ever notice that some Melanesians have frizzy Blonde Hair; well Neanderthal diffusion into Denisovan could be the only explanation and it would be due to bottleneck(possibly slowly eliminating local indigenous African beings and then interbreeding with the remnant African-like beings with a more ancient African species), or some fusion of all these possibilities(its not worth playing guessing games where circumstantial evidence cannot be provided). Evolution becomes more and more complicated the further away from the primordial source that it gets. Of course, when one differentiates in Europe and between Europeans it comes down to saying well some Europeans are not necessarily connected to Homo-Erectus(the African derived type) and the more recent Out-of-Africa variety(coming from the Middle-East), but are descendants of indigenous European populations, with minimal diffusion from non-European populations and most of the similarities being from genetic introgression/complexities of how ancient homo-homo sapiens in Europe interbred with each other and then out-bred with non-European populations or how European homo-homo sapien types preserved their bloodlines when intermingling with non-European populations(possibly founder effect in some more mountainous climes and the areas that were not as effected by agricultural developments(part of Central Asia, very, very small pockets in the Levantine and Anatolia, and possibly very, very small pockets in an area stretching from Afghanistan to Yazidis/Kurds). Its hard to make all these conclusions with certainty and unfortunately most modern scientists are not that interested in doing this.

I think it all comes down to retrogression to norm and that due to founder effect Australoids would have carried more of their ancient African traits(even though there were three migrations from Southeastern Asia into Australia). The difference with Australoids is they don't seem to be related to that part of the African race that has greater connections with Chimpanzees/Bonobos and are connected to a segment of the African race that is extinct(maybe a connection to some strain of Panthropus Bosei) or moved out of Africa a long time ago and never really shared genetic similarity with Africans(or evolved new mutations/alleles that later differentiated them).

There are other things to consider, such as the fact that Aborigines derive from a South-Asian like population that was more dominant in Southeast Asia before Paleo-Mongoloids settled down in Southeastern Asia and in a way is a population onto itself but shares more genetic similarities with Africa(sort of like Middle-Easterners do), but it does not show up on paper and most of it is connections with Horners(East-Africans, who are part Caucasoid(not white, but Caucasoid, there is a difference between Eurpoid and Caucasoid). This would make Aborigines more African then they appear on paper.

I think the thing with Aborigines is they derive so strongly from a non-modern Homo sapiens population that they never were able or exposed to the cultures and social hierarchies that lifted them out other cultures out of their primordial level of existence. Most of the Paleo-Mongoloids in Southeast Asia were Hunter-Gatherers/Horticulturalists and of course cultures like the Dravidians were influenced by possible migration from the ancient Middle-East. They never would have been exposed to this, unlike the majority of Africa, except for maybe in the interior jungles of the modern day Congos.

Aborigine populations in Australia and Papua New Guinea are said to have slightly lower IQs than Sub-Saharans, but when calculating their current IQ(like Papua New Guineas) it is on par with African-Americans(who are a small fraction part white), so either this means there has been inbreeding with whites, a greater white population in Papua New Guinea, or what I also think is the case and that is people from Papua New Guinea don't have direct connection to the Chimpanzee/Bonobo influences in Africa(vis a vis their African lines) and can when their archaic social and cultural backwardness is taken out of the equation develop higher IQs than Africans(especially Africans South of Nigeria, who are more Bantuid, Pygmoid, and Khoi-Khoi influenced).

There has never been a genius or anything mimicking a superficial genius out of Africa, but I know the Aborigines had one(even though he technically did nothing great). Most modern day Aborigines, even if they are part-white, embrace the backwardness of their culture, mythology, and society, but even then one must say the Boomerang is of greater mechanical superiority, when it comes to primitive hunter-gatherer societies, than anything that has come out of Africa.

It goes to provide some proof that IQ, even though heavily influenced by genetics, is also influenced by environment. Native Americans for instance were even more isolated from civilization and yet had some crass form of agriculture in place and knew some mathematics/astronomy, which in Africa's case mostly came from some place in the Middle-East(African Cattle have their roots in the Middle-East).

I hate talking to normal people about this stuff. It's incredible to me that so many biology people know the phases of cell division but never wondered by what process the cell division manifested out of. Its mond blowing to me. How could these individuals not wonder why? I mean, dont that experience existential dread?? Dont they think about everlasting darkness and feel woozy?

I dont know.. but what does frighten me is not that most people seem not to wonder these things, but that even the ones that do, choose not to confront the why, but rather hide away from and it and reject any type of response to the questions.

I've never seen anyone say "Race has no biological basis" before, this seem to me like a straw-man.

The argument I have seen is that the simple race name we use like Caucasian, Asian, black, etc are not accurate descriptors. The idea is that there are people that are, for example, Caucasian that are further related from some other Caucasians than some Caucasians are related to, for example, Asians.
So the designations we (the government) commonly use are mathematically arbitrary, not grounded in sound science.

People do say it, but their meaning is more nuanced than the words make it seem. This whole argument is essentially people talking past each other due to intentionally misinterpreting what the other side is saying while simultaneously oversimplifying their own points.